Slashdot Mirror
The Relevance of Windows
Josh Fink writes "ZDNet has up an article exploring whether of not Windows is still relevant. In the age of 'Web 2.0' both older folks who remember the days before Windows and younger folks who have never known anything else are beginning to see Microsoft's offering as old news. From the article: 'Before closing the books on the Age of Windows, however, let's not get too caught up in the fashion of the moment. The water-cooler crowd may take a dim view of "Win-doze" for all the right reasons. Still, Microsoft's archrivals continue to view it as a product with a potentially make-or-break impact on their businesses. In fact, two of them--Adobe Systems and Symantec--are lobbying European regulators to get tough on Microsoft. The European Union already has an unresolved antitrust dispute with Microsoft, and Adobe and Symantec would be silly not to play that card for all it's worth. So this is what they're doing.'"
I read an interesting article about the operating system being dead and it contained the choice between a machine with your favorite operating system or a machine with your most hated current OS but with access to the internet.
And, you know what? I must admit that I would take the machine that had the connection to the internet regardless of what current OS it had on it.
So, not only is Windows no longer relevant, but the functionality of the operating system itself may have been trumped by our ability to communicate with other people. This doesn't invalidate operating system arguments but it does cause one to wonder about what is really important when you're getting a machine to work & play on.
My work here is dung.
Every computer still needs an operating system. Microsoft has huge amounts of mindshare and vendor lock-in going on with plenty of companies, and that's where the real money is.
that doesn't mean that i want to have to use it for anything. it's ms' right to include whatever they want in their os, in my opinion. it's also my right to prefer os x or linux (or my old vic 20) to using windows.
i think the software companies involved in the whining are just trying to save an obsolete business model, kind of like the music companies complaining about itunes selling music too cheap or the movie studios trying to keep anyone from hacking the encryption on their dvds.
as far as the security thing goes, i don't really have any sympathy for the av companies, but at the same time i'm not sure ms' track record gives me any reason to believe they can handle the security of my computer. of course, my only windows machine is my company issue dell laptop, and it's probably going to die of an exploding battery or me chucking it out the window when i get frustrated trying to use it before it gets a virus anyway.
This space intentionally left blank
So now that you're out of reasons, when can we expect that you throw out your Windows boxes, and buy Macs for your family and friends?
Enough said
:)
Now go buy
This sig has been deprecated.
Symantec!?! These guys have a business that depend entirely on Microsoft continuing to deliver a horribly insecure OS. They're not arguing that Microsoft is unfairly competing with Symantec's "market" - they're really complaining that Microsoft is finally fixing bugs that never should have existed to begin with. They should have known that their "patches until Microsoft fixes it" (which is what AV software really is) product wouldn't be a big-money business after Microsoft (eventually) fixed things. And Adobe - it seems like formating a text document hasn't been innovative since TeX - and if Microsoft makes that easier, I say more power to them.
Don't get me wrong - I don't love Microsoft - but I'd hate to see Adobe make pretty-printing proprietary in Linux or Windows - and I'd hate to see Symantec claim that patches are proprietary for Linux or Windows.
to the following groups:
- gamers, who have specific games which exist on specific platforms
- programmers, who have code, and tools, and toolkits, some of which may be platform specific
- Anyone who has been "around awhile" and has invested dollars in software. For example, software I still use on a regular basis under Windows predates 2000 and I don't see a Linux offering worth giving it up for.
... is misleading. It should read "The Relevance of History" Since all TFA discusses is Microsoft's willingness to "Embrace, Extend, and Extenguish" competition. Recounting the demise of Netscape, and the decline of 3rd party memory managers, disk defragmenters, and other utilities, that are now a part of Windows, it seems that Adobe and the security comunity (PDF, AV, AntiSpyware, ect.) are now in the same boat.
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
Maybe I'm getting my history wrong, but weren't analysts saying the same thing during the age of "Web 1.0"?
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
Words about Windows relevance or irrelevance are easily thrown out in the plublic without thinking of what they really mean.
I imagine a world where Windows is banned and replaced with Ubuntu (for the sake of argument). Imagine your family installing and updating software from CLI or giving up your favorite software or games.
Imagine relearning all they know about their desktop in a Linux environment.
Windows also has a lot of software not offered on other platforms, such as Photoshop, Flash (the IDE), Dreamweaver, 3DSMax and so on.
The Linux alternatives for a designer are mostly jokes (like Gimp, where you can't even draw a rounded rectangle without installing specially crafted Script-Fu commands).
The Mac platform is a lot worse than Windows where I'm locked not only into proprietary OS (which is outdated every year and you have to re-buy it), but also proprietary hardware which you can't upgrade any better than a laptop (add some RAM, a DVD.. and that's it.. wanna faster processor on your iMac? throw away the whole machine and buy a new one).
Adobe and Symantec are perfect examples of why Windows isrelevant. Software companies are not properly supporting other operating systems. Although Adobe still builds graphics apps for the Mac, they support for Linux is, at best, tepid; they rarely even bother supporting Mac on non-graphics applications, such as Audition (formerly Cool Edit Pro, which they acquired years ago). Symantec's support for non-Windows operating sytems is anything but legendary (ex. management console for corporate AV is all Windows).
1) People who drag lawyers into a tech contest are already on the losing end. (Like you, SCO.)
2) If many people feel the need to get a whole continent's regulatory arm fired up about X, then yes, X is relevant.
First, this idea of a web-only network computer type world is great for the readers of Slashdot and ZDNet where complaints of my 6Mb pipe getting enough throughput. People tend to forget that broadband is not universal in this country even for businesses. 70% percent of all US businesses are less than 10 people which equates to 1 Trillion dollars in revenues, this is the foundation of our environement. Only about half of these small business have broadband access, so you expect them to dial up to use a AJAX version of QuickBooks? Go out side the US and it gets worse, there are major manufacturing firms in Asia and India who power is still an issue let alone bandwidth. ASP, SaaS, and Web 2.0 is not an option for a large segment of businesses worldwide and will not be for years to come. Local OSes will be needed for the decade to come for most businesses. Businesses drive the majority of software revenue.
I've used it off and on pretty much since its introduction.
I can't find anything particularly wrong with it. In fact, it's nicer to use because at least it's not all gloomy grey like the Windows version. (Interesting to see them finally fixing this in the new Office, but it was a long time coming).
D
He reiterated the basic difference in philosophy between Sun and MS take on what your computer is. He did a demo of his JavaCard and walked up to a random workstation what became his within a few seconds. he went on to explain that MS believes the physical computer you hold is all your informatio, Sun believes the network is the computer. His analogy was that you don't carry all your money around in a briefcase, you put it in a bank and then access it when you need some of it. But we're perfectly happy carrying all our information around in a box, typically with little or no safety net. It looks like it may not be Sun who points us towards the information appliance with their name on it, but maybe Web 2.0 services that make it so that I can have my info (where-ever) and get it where I need to. I have to say with NeoOffice and Google Writely and Spreadsheets available, not to mention possible links to new Mac apps and .mac services, I can't imagine why I'll be paying full price for Office 2007 Now With Ribbons. And I'd love to see my Java Ring gain all that functionality.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"Mac Word operates like any other Mac app."
That is the problem, it does not. Or at least it did not about a year and a half ago when I last tried it. It was slow, crashed, used non-standard widgets, had ugly interface and had problems with Czech texts, which was a big show stopper for Czech users. Microsoft Office on OS X is simply not the same as Office on Windows. I like to use Word on Windows, I hated using Word on OS X. You did not answer my question, did You ever use Word on Mac? A good word processor for OS X is Mellel (http://www.mellel.com/), but it cannot be used for routine get-a-doc-edit-send-a-doc work.
Yay! you've supported your point by the 1 in 5000 users here that don't know Office has been avaiable for Macs for years. Does this make MACs more relevant? Or just support the Microsoft platform, and feed the monster.
Mac User 1: "Coke sucks! Screw them!"
Mac User 2: "Yeah I only buy iCoke! That will show them!"
Bill Gates: [Grins]
Who writes this shit? Or worse, posts it as news.
No. This isn't shit. This really is different. See, it's Web 2.0, not just plain, old www!
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
This is why windows will still be relevant, I just ordered my mom a dell system with a monitor for $500. It comes with windows, I unpack the computer hook it up, install office, subscribe to anti-virus subscription, and make sure windows updates are set to automatically download and install. After this I bet I will never have to touch this computer for her again until she is ready to buy a new one. She will be able to telecommute to work, she will be able to surf the internet, get email, do her taxes, edit he pictures from her camera and do it quickly, reliably, and with no hassle at all. For most people this is the reality of windows, it isn't this unstable, BSOD throwing, pile of crap everyone makes it out to be. With a little caution towards security on the users part there is nothing it cant do for the average computer user.
I remember all of this going around during DotCom boom 1.0 right before Win ME and 2000 came out.
Then the dotcom crash happened and people quit asking the question, as Microsoft was one of the few stable pillars of the IT industry for a year or so.
I predict pretty much the same thing this time around.
You say you want a revolution....
With a 95+% share of the overall market and a nearly 100% share of the corporate (250+ employees) windows remains very relevant. There is a whole "ecosystem" of windows that will keep it around for a long time.
./'er argue about the relevancy of (pick one) Mac OS X, desktop Linux, Amigas, etc. The real question is should anyone care about the Mac? Will that be around for the next 5 years?
./.
Yet with less than 5% share and almost 0% of the corporate market, the
There seems to be a "distortion effect" on
I'd be happy to change to a non-Microsoft operating system right now. I'd even spend some money to do it, but I've got a handful of programs that I just can't run on anything but Windows, and that's a stopper for me.
If I can't load Adobe Premiere, or Sonar or Eve-Online in Linux or OSX, it's no good to me. I'd even be happy to switch from Sonar back to Logic Audio Platinum and I can run Premiere on a Mac, but still there's Eve-Online.
If I even have to WORRY about whether I can run my favorite apps, I'm not going to change to a different OS, even if there are lots of reasons for me to do so.
I know from experience that I can work longer, with less fatigue, on a Mac than on Windows or Linux. I prefer the look and feel of OSX. I love the idea of open source operating systems, and I like the way Linux can be made bulletproof without sacrificing all sorts of performance and resources. But still... I can't run my favorite apps.
So who's got to change, me or the manufacturers? Am I supposed to switch to Linux with the hope that if enough of us do so the software manufacturers will start to port their apps over to Linux? I don't have time for that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Symantec has an extremely hefty investment in the windows platform. Symantec has put out fud here and there about open source security precisely because the software is too secure. If an alternative to windows were to gain substantial market share that would mean lost marketshare for Symantec since their AV products wouldn't be needed, used, or even available on that platform.
At the same time Symantec wants all that juicy system internal information that microsoft won't share or charges them out the arse for now.
If every new garage, barn, carport, and shed in the world came with a Ford Model T pre-parked inside it, their attitude would have been correct, too...
Sure, there'd be some installs of Linspire and some people running MacOS (and maybe Apple would see this as a good time to make MacOS install on lots of machines), but for hard core gamers and especially for corporate IT departments, it would be next to impossible to switch quickly and they'd end up paying quite a premium.
Thing is, why would they need to "switch quickly"? With the resource overhead I've seen in the beta version of Vista "hardcore gamers" would have to be retarded to make the switch. It'll only decrease the performance of your games, and all games for the next 3-4 years at least will keep running on XP. Meanwhile it makes no sense for corporate IT departments to switch immediately - any decent admin would wait until at least SP1 before switching. So you've got a good 2-3 year buffer there before anyone would really NEED to switch, which leaves plenty of opportunity for a viable alternative to gain popularity. The only thing MS could do to encourage people to upgrade sooner is stop releasing patches for Windows XP....but that'd set up an excellent opportunity for a class action lawsuit. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it makes no sense for MS to "raise the price by some interesting factor".
There's at least two main things I see wrong with your argument. First of all, your percentages sound off. The main reason I'd imagine this is the case is that you're speaking of only the desktop market. But, there's a lot more to computers than desktops. Depending on how you slice it, embedded OSs far outstrip the number of Windows installs available. Yet, at the same time, one can hardly say it's the case that people are somehow tied into supporting those embedded OSs for years to come.
And that leads into the second main point, the relevance of Windows could just as well be questioning the relevance of Mac OS X or Linux or Amiga. The whole point of Web 2.0 and similar technology is to produce platform agnostic applications that remove any sort of vendor lock-in that might exist. If this is actually achieved, then the only real motivation to continue to use Windows is the amount of driver support that already exists. But, it's not hard to imagine that BSD variants could be created by OEMs with new drivers for new hardware that rather mitigates the point for most people.
So, I wouldn't say it's a reality distortion field. I just think you've misunderstood the question, as the article was pointing out that even that which we might find most relevant today might not be at all tomorrow. What better example than Windows?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
"Troll"? Alright, who gave mod points to Bill Gates?
It still runs about 95% of the world's desktops and laptops that are used to access all the "web 2.0" stuff we all love so much and which is currently being hailed as "the end of the operating system"...
So long as web servers, web clients, etc. have the dependency of requiring an OS to run on, OSs will remain relevant -- just as the hardware on which the OS runs remains relevant. Like hardware, OSs just aren't "hot" or "trendy" anymore among us software people, that's all...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?